Chinese Aviation Industry


Fedupwithlies

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'd add that should the CCP start a conflict over Taiwan, Western support for Chinese aerospace programmes and airlines would vanish overnight. Lack of spares might just force Xi Jinping to find some other conveyance than his Air China 747-8I.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From 2012 even. I think Xi'll be fine.

As for the 737 Max, every major jurisdiction has re-certified the aircraft. Boeing majorly screwed up that programme, but fixed it, and FAA/EASA have cleared it for service, as have Asia-Pacific countries like India, Singapore, and Thailand. Why is CAAC holding out? Politics.

India, Singapore and Thailand, among others, take their cues from the FAA or the EASA. Very few countries have their own certification program. In fact it wasn't too long ago that EASA took the FAA's word at face value. Them certifying the plane means nothing, they're literally following the FAA's footsteps. (Still)

That CAAC is taking its time re-certifying the plane is not surprising. They were the first to ground the plane, through a lot of protest. Its not enough to say "oh, Boeing screwed up but they said they fixed it, so everything is A-OK!", because Boeing never admitted they screwed up until they had no other choice, and even then they didn't admit it for a very long time. Its not enough to accept the FAA's word, they lost all credibility the moment they supported Boeing when Boeing was lying, deflecting blame, and doing everything possible to worm their way out of this.

China was the first to ground the plane despite huge pressure from the western-led world, (and everyone claimed it was only politics back then too) but they were vindicated by the 20-month long (in the US) grounding. That CAAC haven't re-certified it isn't politics, that the FAA and EASA have is politics.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why all the vitriol? It's a statement of fact that China's commercial aerospace sector is highly reliant on the West. Sure, they're working to develop technology locally, and joint ventures are a key part of this, but China still has a long way to go.

Irrespective of where one stands politically, China's reliance on western aerospace/airliners is a weak point. Similarly, they still need Russian engines on the military side. This is why, justifiably, they are trying to gain competence in all these technologies - either through joint ventures, espionage, or organic development.

Objectively speaking, western aerospace firms - and western governments - have to seriously question the political and economic ramifications of supporting China's aerospace sector. Sure, there is money to be made with Chinese programmes, but will this be the case long term? Most definitely not.

I'd add that should the CCP start a conflict over Taiwan, Western support for Chinese aerospace programmes and airlines would vanish overnight. Lack of spares might just force Xi Jinping to find some other conveyance than his Air China 747-8I.

As for the 737 Max, every major jurisdiction has re-certified the aircraft. Boeing majorly screwed up that programme, but fixed it, and FAA/EASA have cleared it for service, as have Asia-Pacific countries like India, Singapore, and Thailand. Why is CAAC holding out? Politics.
Nope there's no vitriol here. You mistake debunking your misconceptions as vitriol. That is common for people of privilege to regard the simple act of disagreement as an outrageous provocation. But it isn't, it's just your personal unfamiliarity with people who have the audacity to disagree with you.

China's commercial aerospace sector seeks western regulatory approval - not really technology. the west banned all Russian/Soviet airliners until 1999, suppressing the Russian commercial aviation industry in the process.
 

MortyandRick

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why all the vitriol? It's a statement of fact that China's commercial aerospace sector is highly reliant on the West. Sure, they're working to develop technology locally, and joint ventures are a key part of this, but China still has a long way to go.

Irrespective of where one stands politically, China's reliance on western aerospace/airliners is a weak point. Similarly, they still need Russian engines on the military side. This is why, justifiably, they are trying to gain competence in all these technologies - either through joint ventures, espionage, or organic development.

Objectively speaking, western aerospace firms - and western governments - have to seriously question the political and economic ramifications of supporting China's aerospace sector. Sure, there is money to be made with Chinese programmes, but will this be the case long term? Most definitely not.

I'd add that should the CCP start a conflict over Taiwan, Western support for Chinese aerospace programmes and airlines would vanish overnight. Lack of spares might just force Xi Jinping to find some other conveyance than his Air China 747-8I.

As for the 737 Max, every major jurisdiction has re-certified the aircraft. Boeing majorly screwed up that programme, but fixed it, and FAA/EASA have cleared it for service, as have Asia-Pacific countries like India, Singapore, and Thailand. Why is CAAC holding out? Politics.

As for the 737 Max, every major jurisdiction has re-certified the aircraft. Boeing majorly screwed up that programme, but fixed it, and FAA/EASA have cleared it for service, as have Asia-Pacific countries like India, Singapore, and Thailand. Why is CAAC holding out? Politics.

Criticism and arguments are not vitriol.

My contention with this statement is that would you have said the same regarding the US and EU not approving chinese COVID vaccines as an example of politics as well? Or is that not politics because the US and EU have higher standards?
 

Orthan

Junior Member
should China keep ramping up the pressure on Taiwan, sanctioning China's aerospace industry is a good place to start. Would also be interesting to see the effect of Boeing and Airbus ceasing to provide customer support for China's airliner fleet. The country's airline sector would grind to a halt overnight.
Dont bring taiwan to this thread, please. And do you think that boeing and airbus would cease customer support???

we're here to discuss aerospace matters, not share political views.
Doesnt seem to me that you are doing that.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
The issue with helping Comac on the C919 and Avic with the MA700 is that technology and skills will support China's military programmes. Parker Aerospace, to name just one supplier, is providing the FBW for the MA700. This kit is essential for military aircraft, namely the H-20.

If one example of a non-Chinese FBW developer being involved in a FBW program for a Chinese civilian prop aircraft is somehow evidence that Chinese military programs require foreign FBW, how then did China develop FBW for the Y-20? Or the J-20, or the dozens of Chinese UAV/UCAVs that have been flying for years to over a decade now.

China mastered FBW since the 2000s. MA700 is a civilian prop aircraft with not a single thing in common with something like the H-20. To say China's H-20 is dependent on a certain Parker Aerospace :)D:D:D:D:D:D:D) is like saying USA's military radars depend on Chinese electronics supply chains. It's laughably false even if morons want to proclaim a "I say therefore it is" kind of discussion.

China also doesn't play by the rules. By rights, the 737 Max should be flying in China, but Beijing is holding up a relaunch for political reasons. They see it as bargaining chip for some other concession, such as western certification for the (probably uncertifiable) C919.

736 Max is a dangerous aircraft and uncertifiable. It is a travesty that the 737 Max was ever allowed to fly anywhere on earth.

So what rule did China break by not allowing the Max to fly in China and continuing to persist with that? Imagine China calling the US a rule breaker if the US banned a Chinese kettle that explodes upon first use. Is it not unreasonable?

Western certification for C919 would be extremely reluctant even if the C919 was best in class and the safest. What makes you suggest that the C919 is uncertifiable. I suggest you stop being this prejudiced because your bias, hatred, and butthurt frustration is clear for all to see.

It's difficult to see an outright ban on aerospace technology exports to China, but should China keep ramping up the pressure on Taiwan, sanctioning China's aerospace industry is a good place to start. Would also be interesting to see the effect of Boeing and Airbus ceasing to provide customer support for China's airliner fleet. The country's airline sector would grind to a halt overnight.

Sanctioning China's aerospace industry has been the practice since the beginning. The only reason the west does supply AVIC with certain things is because AVIC can do everything by itself.

If there was a single thing AVIC could not do or could not master within an acceptable short timeframe, the west would ban that particular aspect. They do not ban the stuff they offer because China can do it and they are offering it because they want to make the money and they would only certify if China uses some of their western suppliers. The C919 can be entirely Chinese if AVIC was required to go at it alone. It is using some western suppliers because AVIC wants C919 to be certified for the west and in order for the west to allow it, it must use some western components.

Hope that clear your confusions up even if you don't have any intentions of learning and thinking but here we are anyway.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
COMAC is extremely inexperienced in the process of making civilian airliners.

Design engineering an airliner is not as hard as the manufacturing engineering and that is not as hard as producing them to a budget and rate that is both exceeding standards (you have not yet developed and modified over decades of experience doing and refining this), meeting economic expectations, keeping up with project and logistics demands, juggling delivery and parts supply, and at least approaching the leading competition.

The reason why no one else, not even experienced aviation giants, have even approached the level of Airbus and Boeing duopoly is not because the design engineering is exclusively difficult. The last of the three is extremely time consuming and demands near instant learning and adapting to the point it's honestly nearly impossible. China with state backing may be able to leverage market to a degree where the time and experience disadvantage is offset. At least to a degree where the first two aspects are mastered and the third develops over time. COMAC needs to eventually become peer competitive otherwise it remains a financial drain overall for the state that supports it in its development phase. Having said that, we actually don't have access to the accounting figures so there is some chance the financial "support" isn't as involving as we're simply assuming because it is a first effort in a new field for COMAC so naturally not competitive yet.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Oh btw on the H-20 FBW example...

The idea that the FBW (which has only recently been done by a US supplier) for this...

1637239932968.png


is somehow going to be the biggest deal in FBW tech for something like this...

1637240002408.png


because "I said so"... and all while the nation and organisation has long managed to self develop and fly for many years aircraft like these...

1637240087079.png


1637240194092.png

j20a.jpg


To just show three out of dozens of examples that are leaked to the public.

BTW I don't think Parker Aerospace or whatever it's called can even begin to develop a FBW for a hypersonic glide vehicle that sustains Mach 20 flight over tens of thousands of kilometers. And yet Chinese engineers have developed many FBW for many different types of hypersonic aircraft that do at least Mach 5 sustained and have done so for over a decade.

As for flying wing, well the FBW has been done since at least 2013 where it was flown... so yeah definitely flying wing FBW done for well over a decade (development takes many years before they publicly fly a full prototype).

1637240646328.png
Prototype GJ-11 flying in 2013. I'd say it's safe bet that many flying wing FBW tests have been in development since 2000s at the latest.

As for properly advanced FBW, well Chinese 6th gen project leaked studies involve fairly exotic airframe designs and variable geometry applications. Dark Sword program is much more complex than the MA700 which is even simpler than the Y-20... again preceding all the Parker Aerospace MA700.

American FBW contractors couldn't even dream of developing FBW for something as simple as a Chinese flying wing target drone let alone any one of these projects. The MA700 FBW level is kindergarten stuff that is only given to a western supplier for political good will. It's far too easy and has no military value whatsoever. If Chinese military FBW can get to levels beyond what the US has even managed (HGV control) and have long since mastered the "hardest" in FBW - various flying wings and exotic designs like Divine Eagle UAV years if not decades before Parker Aerospace is allowed a slice of a miserably small pie for a relatively unimportant aircraft. Don't confuse an act of small and limited charity with total PLAAF desperation. It is comical. China is giving charity to the US when it allows little players a slice of the pie in something it can get university students to pull off in their sleep.

This comical claim that China needs some nobody US aviation supplier to develop H-20's FBW is like claiming a renowned Nobel prize winning physicists needs a high school dropkick to teach them how a quadratic equation works. When you see such people in the same room, the former is giving some charitable effort to the latter. Parker Aerospace is a nobody compared to AVIC and hold zero advantage in zero aviation tech fields over AVIC. Literally everything Parker Aerospace knows and can do, AVIC already has and can do with its most junior of interns. American engineering prowess more than halved in capability and performance since the 1960s. China went from near zero to greater than whatever level the US is at. The results are just not as abundantly clear yet because China hides its strength and the US is desperately holding onto a vestige of absolute superiority. In reality it is only riding on fumes and due to its great momentum and last position of acceleration, it is still enviably capable and in leading positions on key national grand projects... except hypersonic aircraft, combined cycle engines, and scramjet engines... where evidence points to China leading in albeit with only marginal advantages.

Parker Aerospace isn't developing FBW for H-20. It's not good enough to. It's not even good enough to develop FBW for something like J-20... a FBW system Chinese engineers mastered well before Parker engineers have had a single chance to develop a canard. Sorry if truth melt snowflakes but Chinese FBW was only behind when the J-10 was being developed and domestic FBW efforts required verification from Israeli and Russian engineers. Since then it's started running and has surpassed the US. Supercomputers (2 exascale units vs 0 from the US) and superior wind tunnels do help.


Oh and you know what is a real case of dependence? US dependence on Chinese energy storage technology. Without CATL and BYD technologies, Tesla would not be as competitive. CATL and BYD battery tech is currently above LG Chem (who are going bankrupt due to the latest fuckup and recalls) and Panasonic, another Kodak moment of historic has beens in the making. Apple begging CATL to supply batteries for Apple's new ventures met with rejection only because the US gov forced Apple to include conditions of business being Chinese companies must set up transfer of tech to the US on US soil. Sorry but that particular juice wasn't worth the squeeze it seems unless deals are sweetened. The Chinese offered far better deals where Western corporations built trillions in wealth out of and all their technology post coupling with China is a result of having Chinese money and market participating in this chaos we call global capitalism. In the case of the MA700, that's another example of capitalism meeting diplomacy. But clearly these concepts are well beyond someone who cannot even appreciate basic understanding of the most surface concepts of simple science.
 
Last edited:

Xsizor

Captain
Registered Member
Oh btw on the H-20 FBW example...

The idea that the FBW (which has only recently been done by a US supplier) for this...

View attachment 79124


is somehow going to be the biggest deal in FBW tech for something like this...

View attachment 79125


because "I said so"... and all while the nation and organisation has long managed to self develop and fly for many years aircraft like these...

View attachment 79126


View attachment 79129

View attachment 79130


To just show three out of dozens of examples that are leaked to the public.

BTW I don't think Parker Aerospace or whatever it's called can even begin to develop a FBW for a hypersonic glide vehicle that sustains Mach 20 flight over tens of thousands of kilometers. And yet Chinese engineers have developed many FBW for many different types of hypersonic aircraft that do at least Mach 5 sustained and have done so for over a decade.

As for flying wing, well the FBW has been done since at least 2013 where it was flown... so yeah definitely flying wing FBW done for well over a decade (development takes many years before they publicly fly a full prototype).

View attachment 79131
Prototype GJ-11 flying in 2013. I'd say it's safe bet that many flying wing FBW tests have been in development since 2000s at the latest.

As for properly advanced FBW, well Chinese 6th gen project leaked studies involve fairly exotic airframe designs and variable geometry applications. Dark Sword program is much more complex than the MA700 which is even simpler than the Y-20... again preceding all the Parker Aerospace MA700.

American FBW contractors couldn't even dream of developing FBW for something as simple as a Chinese flying wing target drone let alone any one of these projects. The MA700 FBW level is kindergarten stuff that is only given to a western supplier for political good will. It's far too easy and has no military value whatsoever. If Chinese military FBW can get to levels beyond what the US has even managed (HGV control) and have long since mastered the "hardest" in FBW - various flying wings and exotic designs like Divine Eagle UAV years if not decades before Parker Aerospace is allowed a slice of a miserably small pie for a relatively unimportant aircraft. Don't confuse an act of small and limited charity with total PLAAF desperation. It is comical. China is giving charity to the US when it allows little players a slice of the pie in something it can get university students to pull off in their sleep.

This comical claim that China needs some nobody US aviation supplier to develop H-20's FBW is like claiming a renowned Nobel prize winning physicists needs a high school dropkick to teach them how a quadratic equation works. When you see such people in the same room, the former is giving some charitable effort to the latter. Parker Aerospace is a nobody compared to AVIC and hold zero advantage in zero aviation tech fields over AVIC. Literally everything Parker Aerospace knows and can do, AVIC already has and can do with its most junior of interns. American engineering prowess more than halved in capability and performance since the 1960s. China went from near zero to greater than whatever level the US is at. The results are just not as abundantly clear yet because China hides its strength and the US is desperately holding onto a vestige of absolute superiority. In reality it is only riding on fumes and due to its great momentum and last position of acceleration, it is still enviably capable and in leading positions on key national grand projects... except hypersonic aircraft, combined cycle engines, and scramjet engines... where evidence points to China leading in albeit with only marginal advantages.

Parker Aerospace isn't developing FBW for H-20. It's not good enough to. It's not even good enough to develop FBW for something like J-20... a FBW system Chinese engineers mastered well before Parker engineers have had a single chance to develop a canard. Sorry if truth melt snowflakes but Chinese FBW was only behind when the J-10 was being developed and domestic FBW efforts required verification from Israeli and Russian engineers. Since then it's started running and has surpassed the US. Supercomputers (2 exascale units vs 0 from the US) and superior wind tunnels do help.


Oh and you know what is a real case of dependence? US dependence on Chinese energy storage technology. Without CATL and BYD technologies, Tesla would not be as competitive. CATL and BYD battery tech is currently above LG Chem (who are going bankrupt due to the latest fuckup and recalls) and Panasonic, another Kodak moment of historic has beens in the making. Apple begging CATL to supply batteries for Apple's new ventures met with rejection only because the US gov forced Apple to include conditions of business being Chinese companies must set up transfer of tech to the US on US soil. Sorry but that particular juice wasn't worth the squeeze it seems unless deals are sweetened. The Chinese offered far better deals where Western corporations built trillions in wealth out of and all their technology post coupling with China is a result of having Chinese money and market participating in this chaos we call global capitalism. In the case of the MA700, that's another example of capitalism meeting diplomacy. But clearly these concepts are well beyond someone who cannot even appreciate basic understanding of the most surface concepts of simple science.
You spilled truth salts alright.
But your posts are very lengthy, On an average.

On to the topic : Engines seem to be the only weakness of MA700. Chinese websites of repute report that.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
You spilled truth salts alright.
But your posts are very lengthy, On an average.

On to the topic : Engines seem to be the only weakness of MA700. Chinese websites of repute report that.

Well sometimes the truth is complex and layered in nuances. Sometimes they require entire libraries and armies of academics to discover from brainwashing, prejudice, hate, and pure ignorance.

My posts are often lengthy due to this and part because I don't overthink my writing so that it is both engaging and concise while it sets things straight. The primary purpose is to let the record show so to speak. I leave concise rebuttals to those who are more competent in those talents.

Turbo-fan/prop/jet are weaknesses of Chinese aviation industry to this day. MUCH ground has been made over the decades but it's no surprise an unimportant project like MA700 has weak engines when important projects like Y-20, J-20 etc have less than ideal engines. But in their cases, "less than ideal engines" are still just shy of world leading and in J-20's case with WS-10B, still beating every 4th gen heavy fighter ever made... so, meh.
 

Top